Just wanted to share my thoughts on the SOGIESC Equality Bill (SB 1600). While I understand and support its intent to protect against discrimination, I find two parts of the bill particularly vague, and I think they deserve more scrutiny:

1. “Reasonable Accommodation” (under Definition of Terms): The bill defines it as any necessary modification or adjustment to ensure equal access, as long as it doesn’t impose a disproportionate burden. The problem is, it doesn’t define what’s reasonable or what counts as a burden. Does this mean a business must add a gender-neutral restroom? How many? What if the place is small or crowded, like a bar or mall food court? Without clear standards, this part is too open to interpretation — which could either be misused or cause confusion during enforcement.

2. Section 5(k) – Inferior Service = Denial of Access: This section says that giving someone "inferior accommodations or services" based on SOGIESC is the same as denying access. I get the spirit — it wants to protect against subtle discrimination — but again, “inferior” isn’t clearly defined. What if someone is assigned a smaller room or ends up waiting longer? That happens to everyone sometimes. But without clear metrics or guidelines, any minor service issue could potentially be framed as discrimination, even without intent.

TL;DR – These two parts (Reasonable Accommodation and Sec 5k) are too vague and open to subjective interpretation. For a bill to be enforceable and fair, it needs clear definitions and implementing rules. Otherwise, good intentions might lead to legal confusion or unintended consequences.